Leicaflex SL (black)

RezaLoghme · Saturday at 11:37 AM

I have an opportunity to buy a black Leicaflex SL. Does anyone here own one? What are your experiences? I already tried several R bodies (R3, R4, R5) and love my R6.

--> I know that I cannot use "R only" lenses but 3cam ones do work, right?
--> Battery issues...and Weinzell workarounds...
--> How reliable is the exposure meter?
--> Which lens would be most suitable for it? I own a Super Angulon 4/21, maybe that one?
--> Prism separation seems to be an issue. Asghar Farhadi has nothing to do with it.

Or just keep my R6 and move on?!
The R6 is at the doctor at the moment, to prep it for its next 35 years.

Paul Howell · Saturday at 12:29 PM

Good question, I've been thinking about a SL2, not for any good reason, just to have one but I want a user camera. I had given thought to a R8 or 9, but the SL is more basic, less to go wrong, just going on 60s years, how are they holding up?

RezaLoghme · Saturday at 12:33 PM

Paul Howell said:
Good question, I've been thinking about a SL2, not for any good reason, just to have one but I want a user camera. I had given thought to a R8 or 9, but the SL is more basic, less to go wrong, just going on 60s years, how are they holding up?

SL2 and R8/9 are direct alternatives how?
Like a 1971 911T and a 996?

250swb · 2025-11-09T03:24:34-0500

RezaLoghme said:
I have an opportunity to buy a black Leicaflex SL. Does anyone here own one? What are your experiences? I already tried several R bodies (R3, R4, R5) and love my R6.

--> I know that I cannot use "R only" lenses but 3cam ones do work, right?
--> Battery issues...and Weinzell workarounds...
--> How reliable is the exposure meter?
--> Which lens would be most suitable for it? I own a Super Angulon 4/21, maybe that one?
--> Prism separation seems to be an issue. Asghar Farhadi has nothing to do with it.

Or just keep my R6 and move on?!
The R6 is at the doctor at the moment, to prep it for its next 35 years.

The SL needs two cam lenses for the meter to work, otherwise 3 cam still mount. You can't use R Rom lenses.

SL's are nice enough cameras but they are stuck in the era they were built, not like a Nikon that can use a multitude of F mount lenses manufactured over decades. And some of the lenses aren't great by modern standards either. Leica were throwing everything they knew into the later R lenses, and especially the ROM variety and you get zooms as good as or sometimes better than primes from previous years. Both the R8 (built after a certain serial number that I can't remember) or an R9 are delightful cameras to use and to take advantage of the last of the R lenses. As with all SL or R lenses the user has to put up with the crazy number of filter types and sizes that Leica thought sensible.

RezaLoghme · 2025-11-09T03:41:59-0500

250swb said:
The SL needs two cam lenses for the meter to work, otherwise 3 cam still mount. You can't use R Rom lenses.

SL's are nice enough cameras but they are stuck in the era they were built, not like a Nikon that can use a multitude of F mount lenses manufactured over decades. And some of the lenses aren't great by modern standards either. Leica were throwing everything they knew into the later R lenses, and especially the ROM variety and you get zooms as good as or sometimes better than primes from previous years. Both the R8 (built after a certain serial number that I can't remember) or an R9 are delightful cameras to use and to take advantage of the last of the R lenses. As with all SL or R lenses the user has to put up with the crazy number of filter types and sizes that Leica thought sensible.

Well I own a nice R6 and have a late model Summilux 50mm, so modern era SLR is covered with the GOAT combo.

My 135mm and 21mm are from 1973. For those, I want a contemporary camera. My R3 has let me down (desilvering in prism, erratic exposure meter) and I thought the electronic-less SL or SL2 could be an alternative.

This thread is really not about buying a R8 or R9.
And yes, I agree that lenses developed in 1960s and lenses launched in 1990s might differ.

Paul Howell · 2025-11-09T12:30:57-0500

RezaLoghme said:
SL2 and R8/9 are direct alternatives how?
Like a 1971 911T and a 996?

When I was thinking about a Leica SLR my first thoughts was the most recent models, most feature, other than auto focus very competitive to late model Canon, Nikon and Minolta. The prices of lens changed my mind. Then I got to thinking about the SL2, internal spot meter, great build quality, maybe 3 lens, 50mm, 28 and a 90 or 100. Actuality it is more of an alternative to a Swiss Alpa 11e, which I considered, again the body is too expensive, it's the lens set that is pricey. A friend of mine wife inherited a Alpa 10, they sent to me for a couple weeks before they put up for auction along with a couple of lens including the Swiss Kern 50mm macro, great lens. Other thing is the camera is rather odd to use. So a SL2, is on my list. Don't know how well the meters have held up. And here in the U.S, finding a tech who can service a SL.

RezaLoghme · 2025-11-09T12:41:11-0500

Besides the mount, these are very different cameras with 30-40 years between them.
And the lens prices, since most of the lenses fit to most of the bodies...I dont get what you are trying to say.
A 50mm Summicron is about 300-600 EUR, no matter what body you attach to it.

Paul Howell · 2025-11-09T14:12:12-0500

That is true, I think I am confusing the mount, thinking the older SL mount with different number of cams in less demand than the newer versions. Still less than the lens for an Alpa.

Lachlan Young · 2025-11-09T14:45:39-0500

The main 2/3-cam lenses that won't work on the SL are the Minolta derivatives (hence the SL2) and some of the faster lenses from about 1980-ish (the 35 & 80 Summilux-R's I think). For various complex reasons I've ended up with an SL2 (it happened to be attached to a lens I wanted) and a Leicaflex Standard, but unless you happen to want to use the relatively small number of lenses that are not compatible with the SL, the SL is probably the best compromise. The Standard is probably the most overbuilt of them and the SL2 is a bit less like handling a very heavy bar of soap made of metal than the Standard and SL.

I would use a handheld meter and not overly worry about the TTL meter, and the prism can be resilvered as long as it doesn't have the harder outer coating that started to appear on SLR prisms in the 1970s.

RezaLoghme · 2025-11-09T14:51:42-0500

Paul Howell said:
That is true, I think I am confusing the mount, thinking the older SL mount with different number of cams in less demand than the newer versions. Still less than the lens for an Alpa.

Yeah and how much less are these 1 or 2 cam lenses, and what in absolute numbers is "too expensive" relative to "not expensive", keeping in mind that analog photography incurs ongoing costs (film, developing, printing) which often makes the initial outlay for a body and lens really neglectable.

Paul Howell · 2025-11-09T15:24:42-0500

At this point I want what I consider to be a trophy camera, even as working PJ I could never afford a Leica SLR, I did have a IIIG, or an Alpa. I have 2 Nikon Fs, inherited from a very old friend who passed away, my first SLR a Pentax Spotmatic I bought in 1966, along with a brace of Minolta A mount cameras and a motley collection of Konica, Minolta MD, and others. My day to day walk around is a Minolta 800si, the 9 is too heavy. So a Leica Sl with 3 lens for day to day walk around, would be nice a trophy set. I would like a working and accurate meter. So back the question how are the first generation Leica holding up.

RezaLoghme · 2025-11-09T15:44:39-0500

The R and SL bodies, when in good shape (no dodgy electronics, prism without desilvering, light seals ok, mirror damper cleaned) and warranty from a dealer...a couple of 100 EUR or US$, probably rather 400 than 200.

And a halfway decent 50mm lens is also 300-400 with the aforementioned parameters.

What? "Too expensive" is the next post? Well, you can make concessions, and tinker, and ask for ticks and trips how to mend your cheapo lens. Buy from private sellers and deal with imperfections. And still you will be several 100 out of pocket.

250swb · 2025-11-09T16:57:02-0500

RezaLoghme said:
Well I own a nice R6 and have a late model Summilux 50mm, so modern era SLR is covered with the GOAT combo.

My 135mm and 21mm are from 1973. For those, I want a contemporary camera. My R3 has let me down (desilvering in prism, erratic exposure meter) and I thought the electronic-less SL or SL2 could be an alternative.

This thread is really not about buying a R8 or R9.
And yes, I agree that lenses developed in 1960s and lenses launched in 1990s might differ.

I was addressing your dismissive comments about there being no direct relationship between the SL and the R8 or R9. They are of course both 'professional' cameras in the Leica SLR saga so which lenses fit which cameras is important. But given you are always asking questions how does it turn out that you always know your answer beforehand and can't stand an alternative view?

RezaLoghme · 2025-11-09T17:12:17-0500

There is a relationship as much as there is one between a 1971 911T and a 996.

Ron789 · 2025-11-09T17:20:59-0500

I have an SL and it's a great camera: simple but extremely well built. The focusing screen is fantastic in brightness. Some say it's the best camera Leitz ever built in terms of build quality. Note: there are two versions: one with a red plastic lens unlocking lever, one with a metal unlocking lever. The red plastic version can break off so better look for one with the metal lever. The internal build quality of the SL2 is said to be less than the SL

MattKing · 2025-11-09T19:56:02-0500

RezaLoghme said:
There is a relationship as much as there is one between a 1971 911T and a 996.

Yes, a strong relationship between highly competent and very usable pieces of machinery, manufactured by essentially the same entity, despite many years of change.
The different ages mean differing concerns.
But assuming they are well maintained, I'd love to drive either of them.
And I'd hate to have to pay to buy either of them.
And I'd really hate to have to pay to maintain either of them - particularly the 996.
We won't talk about having to pay to insure either of them.
As for the Leica SLR comparisons, I haven't handled one for a very long time. And based on my current usage patterns with 35mm equipment and needs, they wouldn't give me better photographs than what I currently have and use - predominantly Olympus OM, with a bit of Canon EOS film, and a smattering of fixed lens alternatives like a Retinas, a Retinette (see my avatar) and an Olympus XA-2.
As nice as Leicas are - and I sold them for a while - it is more important to me that I choose and use something that works well for me.

Hassasin · 2025-11-10T02:51:46-0500

SL2 was what it was at the time, too expensive to compete. It's on heavy side, it is well built, finder is one of a kind, needs to be seen to believe that view. De-silvering of prism is well documented, although not all bodies were affected (mine certainly was one of the lucky ones).

In comparison to R (not 8 or9) it is larger and does not sit in the hand as well (personal anyways).

RezaLoghme · 2025-11-10T03:37:18-0500

If you know R bodies then you will remember the different shape of R3 compared to4/5/6 and 7.

Hassasin · 2025-11-10T05:15:04-0500

RezaLoghme said:
If you know R bodies then you will remember the different shape of R3 compared to4/5/6 and 7.

I was referring primarily to your R6, R3 is still vastly different from SL, there are no comparisons between any R (3 through 9) and SL, sans lens mount with associated limitations dependent on cam count.

RezaLoghme · 2025-11-10T06:08:52-0500

Paul Howell said:
At this point I want what I consider to be a trophy camera, even as working PJ I could never afford a Leica SLR, I did have a IIIG, or an Alpa. I have 2 Nikon Fs, inherited from a very old friend who passed away, my first SLR a Pentax Spotmatic I bought in 1966, along with a brace of Minolta A mount cameras and a motley collection of Konica, Minolta MD, and others. My day to day walk around is a Minolta 800si, the 9 is too heavy. So a Leica Sl with 3 lens for day to day walk around, would be nice a trophy set. I would like a working and accurate meter. So back the question how are the first generation Leica holding up.

On ebay there is a SL/Summicron 50mm combo for 689 EUR. Black version, from a dealer. On your doorstep in the U.S. probably 1000 EUR, with taxes and whatnot. Nice deal.

And another one, with a Vario-Elmar 28-70, for 429 EUR.

but, yes, Leica is "too expensive".

Don_ih · 2025-11-10T06:33:36-0500

Paul Howell said:
So back the question how are the first generation Leica holding up.

I have an original Leicaflex and it works perfectly. It's the only Leica slr I want. The meter seems to work with a hearing aid battery. I don't like using slrs, so I don't use it much. I did use it to take the photo in the "Let's All Print One Negative" activity, though (and the camera outperformed the film).

RezaLoghme · 2025-11-10T10:33:32-0500

I am about to "pull" the "trigger" on a silver SL.
Why silver?
Because I AM NOT WILLING TO PAY THE SURCHARGE ON BLACK CAMERAS
The whole "ohhh black cameras" fad is a fad!

Paul Howell · 2025-11-10T10:54:39-0500

I will put in my list and starting checking my usual sites for prices. Not sure when I will be able to buy, within the next month I hope,

Hassasin · 2025-11-10T12:32:42-0500

Paul Howell said:
I will put in my list and starting checking my usual sites for prices. Not sure when I will be able to buy, within the next month I hope,

Which one are you actually considering ?

RezaLoghme · 2025-11-10T12:47:46-0500

From my experience, you either go for Leica-Classic-Shop or similar serious shops and buy with warranty and documented CLA, or you buy a body-and-lens combo from a private seller. Two different price points, two different value prepositions.

Leicaflex SL (black)

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency